Yes, Kurt has the scar in both halves.Barmy wrote:Not sure about the scar. It makes it better only in that Kurt survived and got tougher.
Could the Weinsteins BE any lamer. They are talking about replacing the missing reels.
Drew, you arrogant prick, I'm surprised you didn't. The bomb going off between the two guys: Aliens. The truck crashing through the building/glass: T1 & T2. The hanging from the helicopter. True Lies. There's a lot more, but I'm tired and can't remember. I will see it again, though. Trust me, Rodriguez has a hard on for Cameron's work, and that's cool, but it's not as if the man is unlike Tarantino. You just love to slaughter Quentin, calling him a hack and this and that, claiming he's propped up by the best, most expensive crew in the world as if he's Brett Ratner or something, which is utter bullshit.DrewReiber wrote:I don't think you understand the meaning of the word disillusion.exte wrote:You have to be the most disillusioned member on here.
Because there is a big difference between reference and tracework, further compounded by doing the work yourself versus taking credit for someone else's.You seem to have given Rodriguez a free ride, yet I spotted many references to Jim Cameron's work in Planet Terror.
I am curious to know where you see Cameron, if only because I didn't see any influence from that particular director. All up for catching something I missed, though.
I don't, but it's only because when I have for the past several years, I have the movie ruined (if it's a drama) by overly-cynical or just plain strange reactions (for instance, History of Violence, in which the crowd laughed hysterically when people were shot in the head or whenever the married couple went for oral or the staircase love scene). Being 20 years old has severely limited my movie theater experiences and I am very envious whenever I hear about people reminiscing about the 60's or 70's and their art house theater or the feeling of experiencing a serious film with a room full of other humans. Instead of this communal experience, my emotions tend to clash with the reactions of the majority of the audience, ultimately disrupting the effect of the movie on myself. The advantage of a comedy or parody is that it caters to the over-riding attitude and disposition of my generation: cynicism. Biting satire, sexual innuendo, and parody are the most successful at really connecting with todays audience. Somehow Crash snuck in there, too.tavernier wrote:Don't go to the movies too often, I bet.blindside8zao wrote:Regardless of quality, this is the best film-going experience I've had in years, and considering my young age, maybe ever.
Aside from the fact that you're clearly insane to think the above, Pulp Fiction was neither in the Critics or the Directors Top 50 in the 2002 Sight and Sound poll. Considering that was already eight years after the movie had come out and that its reputation has subsequently fallen off even further, I doubt it will ever make an appearance on the list. And rightfully so.exte wrote:Could I be anymore different than the pack of you on this thread in terms of Tarantino's best film? Pulp Fiction, far and away. I honestly think it's the Citizen Kane of our generation. It's a landmark and high water mark in so many resepcts. Of course Drew will say, "I don't think you understand the meaning of landmark or high watermark or the importance of Citizen Kane..."
I'm telling you, I won't be surprised if it's in the top five of the next Sight & Sound poll.
You just handled that with a lot more grace than I would have =D>blindside8zao wrote:I don't, but it's only because [...]tavernier wrote:Don't go to the movies too often, I bet.blindside8zao wrote:Regardless of quality, this is the best film-going experience I've had in years, and considering my young age, maybe ever.
That's some serious reaching if I've ever seen it. I assume that the relationship between El Wray and Cherry Darling is a reference to the Star Wars prequels.exte wrote:The bomb going off between the two guys: Aliens. The truck crashing through the building/glass: T1 & T2. The hanging from the helicopter. True Lies. There's a lot more, but I'm tired and can't remember.
Then backup your statements with actual arguments. Your aimless rhetoric and accompanying expletives, while pretty standard for you, don't serve any discussion. Honestly, I'm surprised you still expect people to take you seriously when your posts degenerate like this.Trust me, Rodriguez has a hard on for Cameron's work, and that's cool, but it's not as if the man is unlike Tarantino.
I would agree that is his best film. It's definitely possible that the adaptation has something to do with his resentment, as it may be about the media's perception of his authorship that he takes issue with combined with the relative failure of the film during it's initial release. I have noticed he hates sharing credit, a problem that is noticibly present in interviews regarding his collaborations with Roger Avary. The words describing his writing of Pulp Fiction in the first Entertainment Weekly interview for Kill Bill was noticibly careful, striving to avoid mention of Roger Avary or even the implication there was a shared credit whatsoever.marty wrote:It is interesting that Tarantino's best film to date, Jackie Brown, was based on a novel and not an original Tarantino script and I think he resents that a bit.
I think this is what you're looking for. From Down And Dirty Pictures by Peter Biskind:exte wrote:Avary went into some detail on his site a few years ago about what was really his material in several of the movies, and how the negotiations went down for Pulp Fiction's credit, etc. It's no longer up, unfortunately. I tried archive.org, and they seem to have nothing, which is very odd. Perhaps he requested they remove it? His reasoning in taking it down is pretty silly: that since other directors started having their own blog, why bother, especially when he was 'blogging' before it was called as such...
When [Tarantino] was going into production on Pulp Fiction, just into 1994, Avary was at the lab, CFI, supervising the color timing on his own film, Killing Zoe, when he was called to the phone. It was Tarantino's attorney, "frantic", according to Avary. He was faxing over a rider to Avary's Pulp Fiction contract according to which Avary gave up his co-screenwriting credit in exchange for a "story by" credit. He wanted Avary to sign it and fax it back immediately. Avary called his friend with a note of disbelief in his voice, said, "Hold on a moment here, Quentin. You want me to sign a paper that essentially says I'm forfeiting my writing credit on the film, and take a 'story by' credit?" According to him, Tarantino replied, "Well, yeah, I want the credits to end with a title that says, 'Written and directed by Quentin Tarantino.'" The reason for that, says Avary now, was that "when you're positioning yourself to become a media star, you don't want people to be confused as to who the star is."
According to Avary, Tarantino tried to persuade him that this was a good deal, saying, "Yeah, but look, you'll get 'story by,' you and me, and the writing's for me, but the fact of the matter is, that middle story is yours, but this one attributes the whole story to you. That sounds really good." Avary thought to himself, He's very convincing....But there are all sorts of things peppered throughout Pulp Fiction that are mine. Avary replied, "No, I'm not going to sign it." At that, Avary claims, "Quentin flew into a rage." He yelled, "Okay, fine, I'm gonna rewrite the script, and write all of your contributions out of the screenplay, and you're going to get nothing." Avary was not a member of the Writers Guild, and Tarantino promised him the equivalent of Writers Guild residuals, and an adjustment of the back end participation in his favor. Avary had just put everything he had into Killing Zoe, was facing credit card debts totaling $10,000, and was behind on rent. He thought it over, said okay. He signed the document, faxed it back, and took the money."
No offense, but I have no idea if that is sarcasm or not. I'm not really familiar with your posts, so I'm just curious.rs98762001 wrote:Damn, what a loss.
It was indeed some cheap sarcasm. I personally couldn't care less whether Tarantino or Avary ever make another film, together or separately. It's pretty clear fifteen years into their careers where their interests and preoccupations lie, and it's hard to get excited about unless you're in a perpetual state of arrested adolescence.DrewReiber wrote:No offense, but I have no idea if that is sarcasm or not. I'm not really familiar with your posts, so I'm just curious.rs98762001 wrote:Damn, what a loss.
I guess for Tarantino fans, anyone who valued Pulp Fiction or True Romance might be disappointed regarding the fallout. I'm still curious why no single professional article has popped up chronicling the pattern of Tarantino's collaborators taking their leave. Has no one covered the disturbingly quiet distance put between he and Lawrence Bender? I mean, look at Bender, it's not like he's at a loss considering he just walked off with an Oscar. Still, he was there from the start and his departure doesn't raise an eyebrow?
I think that's a terrible Idea since they are definitely going to make back their money with the multiple DVD releases, and I think that seperate film releases could divide tarantino and rodriguez' working relationship if one does significantly better than the other.Antoine Doinel wrote:Getting back to Grindhouse for a moment, see it while you can as a double feature as Harvey Weinstein may end up releasing the films seperately within in a matter of weeks.
I saw it at noon on Monday at a popular multiplex in Manhattan's Union Square area, and there were 10 people in the theater. Now, the movie was on 4 screens every hour, but still...Antoine Doinel wrote:Thirdly, as my girlfriend pointed out, Grindhouse is the kind of film that almost demands to be seen at late night and midnight screenings. I actually wonder what the matinee ticket sales for this film were versus screenings after six.
